Building bylaws in Ahmedabad: Then and Now

Core objective of building bylaws is to ensure safety as well as hygienic living conditions. One of the first building bylaws came to exist after the great fire of London, where wooden building placed side by side in rows could not prevent the spread of fire.

The bylaws then demanded mandatory provision of stone wall between adjacent buildings. Thus, safety is a prime factor. Post industrialisation, formal system of bylaw housing came into practice in England, which mandated minimum norms of room sizes, its ventilation and provision of adequate services. New construction, especially industrial workers housing, was to adhere to these norms.

This was in response to the squalid conditions of town-houses then, which had resulted due to densification and subdivision of typical row-house into multifamily non-related living quarters rendering many rooms deprived of light, view and ventilation.

Following the path, bylaws in Ahmedabad were designed to ensure adequate light and ventilation and provided norms for minimum room sizes, window sizes and required setbacks and margins. Positive part of these rules was that they were not only punitive but were also encouragative of certain desired quality of life.

For example, bylaws provided incentive for open to sky outdoor floor extensions in the form Chhajas, balconies or terraces. This served many healthy purposes such as providing adequate sun protection to windows, offered opportunities for outdoor living, which is climatically as well as culturally desired in local context. It also brought about form variation allowing better massing possibility through solids and voids. Such extensions also rendered homes flexible for personalisation and growth.

These features as a matter of incentive were offered as bonus, free from any FSI, built-up or ground coverage calculations. People enjoyed and exploited such provisions very effectively.

Sitting the ground at upper floors, they made outdoor sitting, sleeping possible. This encouraged neighbourly interaction and activity spill over. This gave better climate protection (from sun and rain) to lower walls as well as windows. This also became element of personalisation allowing each occupant to adopt differently. Some could put swings, study tables, puja or gardens.

These balconies, especially terraces, became potential spaces for future growth and expansion.

Today's bylaws have been most regressive and negative. Provisions of balconies or verandas have been disallowed from exemption of built up and FSI calculations. They are not allowed as cantilevered projections in margins takes away the playful massing potential. Only 2 feet deep projection at lintel is allowed (not as usable floor) which is inadequate as weather shade.

Not only lack of balcony concessions, even other riders of bylaws categorically shun outdoor open space provisions. For example, in R2 zone permissible ground cover is 45% at the most.

Maximum permissible height is three floors and maximum available FSI is 1.2. Stair cabin, elevators, etc are not counted for FSI but considered in ground cover. So in order to exploit total 1.2 FSI, one is left with no play of masses to provide for any projected masses or voids.

 Same is the equation for low-rise structures with allowable ground cover of 45% and allowable FSI of 1.8 over four floors, disallowing any terraces or balconies. Thus with no intension of flouting laws, balconies and terraces still do not become possible and only dumb boxes sans any playful massing.

This is visually, socio-culturally and environmentally regressive. With only two of the three, rather than all the three parameters controlled (height, ground cover, FSI), this situation can be avoided.